I consider it.Borgholio wrote:I'm surprised nobody mentioned the possibility that we'd go the way of Command and Conquer if Hitler was removed by a time-travelling Albert Einstein...
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Moderator: Edi
I consider it.Borgholio wrote:I'm surprised nobody mentioned the possibility that we'd go the way of Command and Conquer if Hitler was removed by a time-travelling Albert Einstein...
Not even that - the war against Finland hinged on events unfolding as they did IRL. If there is no Nazi Germany and no pact with it, how and why would one need to secure Leningrad? It would be impossible to justify internally. The USSR would be a lot more careful there, since it would also not have all the territories that it got due to the partitioning of Poland in 1939. If any expansion is at all possible, it would be the East - conflicts with Japan over China.Thanas wrote:So just by eliminating Germany from the equation it is very hard to see a war being that destructive or even that devestating to the populace. Worst case scenario would be that the Finnish war escalates but even then it would most likely be a short war as Russia could not resist all of Europe.
Not sure. "Human progress" is a complex thing. WWII had a colossal human death toll, but the rapid scientific advancements it brought later saved or otherwise improved the lives of billions of people.Thanas wrote:I guess the question then is, for lack of a better term, what is more damaging to human progress? Killing 40+ million in Eastern Europe and wrecking nearly all central European states or having a lower number killed in Africa with a longer lifespan for colonial empires?
The war in asia would still happen though I can't see Japan going up against an unoccupied UK, France, US and possibly Germany (provided Chamberlain agrees to the colonial concessions he was mulling over though I can't see Germany going for worthless land in Africa or the pacific).
But Japan still held large areas of China at the end of WW2, despite having to focus much of their resources fighting elsewhere. Even with German training and supplies I wouldn't expect the Chinese to defeat Japan alone in the short term. Would other powers intervene or would there still be a Pear Harbor without Hitler?Thanas wrote:Yeah but considering that China would still be trained and supplied by Germany in this scenario I think Japan would collapse much earlier. Krupp was quite bitter about the loss of their greatest customer as were a lot of former army officers who made a living "advising" the chinese.
The USSR would intervene if Japan kept with their 'Strike North' strategy, but without the German threat in Europe (or it being a lot less dire), Japan would just get their ass handed to them and will probably lose Manchuria sooner or later.Lolpah wrote:But Japan still held large areas of China at the end of WW2, despite having to focus much of their resources fighting elsewhere. Even with German training and supplies I wouldn't expect the Chinese to defeat Japan alone in the short term. Would other powers intervene or would there still be a Pear Harbor without Hitler?Thanas wrote:Yeah but considering that China would still be trained and supplied by Germany in this scenario I think Japan would collapse much earlier. Krupp was quite bitter about the loss of their greatest customer as were a lot of former army officers who made a living "advising" the chinese.
Damn, beat me to it!Borgholio wrote:I'm surprised nobody mentioned the possibility that we'd go the way of Command and Conquer if Hitler was removed by a time-travelling Albert Einstein...